| Literature DB >> 35200343 |
Xinxin Mao1,2, Yulong Wang2, Lan Jiang1, Hanxiaoya Zhang2, Yun Zhao2, Pengyan Liu2, Juanjuan Liu1, Bruce D Hammock3, Cunzheng Zhang1,2,4,5.
Abstract
In this study, a fluorometric and colorimetric dual-readout lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) using antibody functionalized polydopamine-coated gold nanoparticles (Au@PDAs) as a probe was developed for the detection of carbendazim (CBD). Colloidal gold nanoparticles (AuNPs) were coated with polydopamines (PDA) by the oxidation of dopamine to synthesize Au@PDA nanoparticles. The Au@PDA nanoparticles mediated ZnCdSe/ZnS quantum dots (QDs) fluorescence quenching and recovery, resulting in a reverse fluorescence enhancement detection format of CBD. The CBD detection was obtained by the competition between the CBD and the immobilized antigen for Au@PDAs labelled antibody binding, resulting in a significant fluorescence increase and colorimetry decrease corresponded to the concentration of CBD. Dual readout modes were incorporated into the LFIA using the colorimetry signal under natural light and the fluorescence signal under UV light. The cut-off value in the mode of the colorimetric signal and fluorometric signal for CBD detection was 0.5 μg/mL and 0.0156 μg/mL, respectively. The sensitivity of LFIA of the fluorescence mode was 32 times higher than that of the colorimetry mode. There was negligible cross reactivity obtained by using LFIA for the determination of thiabendazole, benomyl, thiophanate-methyl, and thiophanate-ethyl. Consistent and satisfactory results have been achieved by comparing the results of Au@PDAs-QDs-LFIA and liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) testing spiked cucumber and strawberry samples, indicating good reliability of the Au@PDAs-QDs-LFIA.Entities:
Keywords: ZnCdSe/ZnS QDs; carbendazim; dual-readout; lateral flow immunoassay; polydopamine
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35200343 PMCID: PMC8869244 DOI: 10.3390/bios12020083
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biosensors (Basel) ISSN: 2079-6374
Figure 1(A) CBD and CBD hapten. (B) Gel electrophoresis of anti-CBD mAb (lane M: protein marker; lane 1–5: different concentrations of anti-CBD mAb). (C) Inhibition curve of anti-CBD mAb to CBD.
Figure 2Principle of Au@PDAs-QDs-LFIA: (A) detection mode without target CBD; (B) detection mode with target CBD.
Figure 3(A) UV–vis absorption spectra of AuNPs, Au@PDA-50, Au@PDA-100, Au@PDA-150, Au@PDA-200, and Au@PDA-250. (B) TEM image of Au@PDA-100.
Figure 4Cut-off values of the CBD test strip. (A) Test strips under ultraviolet light with different concentrations of CBD. (B) Test strips under natural light with different concentrations of CBD.
Figure 5Specificity of the test strip. (A) Strips added with CBD, thiabendazole, benomyl, thiophanate-methyl, and thiophanate-ethyl under ultraviolet light. (B) Strips added with CBD, thiabendazole, benomyl, thiophanate-methyl, and thiophanate-ethyl under natural light.
Matrix interference on test strip.
| Sample | Concentration of CBD | 5% Methanol-PBS | Dilution | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Colorimetry Signal | Fluorescence Signal | Colorimetry Signal | Fluorescence Signal | ||||||||
| 2× | 5× | 10× | 20× | 2× | 5× | 10× | 20× | ||||
| Strawberry | 0 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| 250 | ± | + | – | ± | ± | ± | – | ± | + | + | |
| 500 | + | + | – | ± | + | + | – | ± | + | + | |
| Cucumber | 0 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| 250 | ± | + | – | ± | ± | ± | – | ± | + | + | |
| 500 | + | + | – | ± | + | + | – | ± | + | + | |
Colorimetry signal (T line): –, an obvious red band was observed; ±, the red band was light; +, no red band was observed. Fluorescence signal (T line): –, no fluorescence band was observed; ±, the fluorescence band was light; +, an obvious fluorescence band was observed.
Test results of strip test and average recoveries of LC—MS/MS for CBD in spiked samples.
| Sample | Concentration of CBD | Au@PDAs-QDs-LFIA | LC—MS/MS | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Colorimetry Signal | Fluorescence Signal | Found (mg/kg) | Recovery | CV | ||
| Strawberry | 0.25 | – | + | 0.247 | 98.6 | 2.9 |
| 0.5 | ± | + | 0.450 | 90.1 | 6.2 | |
| 1 | ± | + | 0.816 | 81.6 | 2.8 | |
| Cucumber | 1 | ± | + | 0.872 | 87.2 | 3.1 |
| 2 | ± | + | 1.58 | 79.0 | 5.2 | |
| 4 | + | + | 3.708 | 92.7 | 4.8 | |
Colorimetry signal (T line): –, an obvious red band was observed; ±, the red band was light; +, no red band was observed. Fluorescence signal (T line): +, an obvious fluorescence band was observed.
Detection results of real strawberry and cucumber samples using this method and LC—MS/MS.
| Sample | Sample Number | Au@PDAs-QDs-LFIA | LC—MS/MS | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Colorimetry Signal | Fluorescence Signal | Found (ng/mL) | ||
| Strawberry | 1 | - | - | ND |
| 2 | - | - | ND | |
| 3 | - | - | ND | |
| 4 | - | - | ND | |
| 5 | - | - | ND | |
| 6 | - | - | ND | |
| 7 | - | + | 23 ± 0.015 | |
| 8 | - | - | ND | |
| 9 | - | + | 48 ± 0.076 | |
| 10 | - | - | ND | |
| Cucumber | 1 | - | - | ND |
| 2 | - | + | 16 ± 0.036 | |
| 3 | - | - | ND | |
| 4 | - | - | ND | |
| 5 | - | - | ND | |
| 6 | - | - | ND | |
| 7 | - | - | ND | |
| 8 | - | - | ND | |
| 9 | - | - | ND | |
| 10 | - | - | ND | |
ND: not detected.